Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

PowerMac G5 2.5GHz Benchmarks

Lotto No Go

greenmonsterman said:
Since I didn't win the $290 million lottery tonigh, I guess I won't be getting my dual 30" screens after all.
Click to expand...

$290 million in NJ, 10 rounds, not even close. Perhaps
I'll stop playing and put the money into a dual 30" screen
fund 🙄
 
Specs for reference

I do most of my work in Cinema4D, so the Cinebench scores always seem particularly relevant to me. (before someone asks: Maxon makes Cinebench, and it is basically just a stripped-down version of their 3d modeling app, Cinema4D.)

I'm running a stock rev A 2 x 2Ghz G5 (with an ATI 9600 Pro) and 2GB of crucial RAM added (for what that's worth) for a total of 2.5GB. The monitor in question is a NEC-Mitsubishi 1760vm, 1280x1024, running through an ADC-DVI adapter and then a Belkin DVI cable direct to the monitor. Here are my specs:

CINEBENCH 2003 v1
****************************************************

Tester : Kingsfoil13

Processor : Dual 2.0 G5 rev A
MHz : 2 x 2.0 Ghz
Number of CPUs : 2
Operating System : 10.3.4

Graphics Card : Ati 9600 Pro
Resolution : <fill this out>
Color Depth : <fill this out>

****************************************************

Rendering (Single CPU): 287 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 498 CB-CPU

Multiprocessor Speedup: 1.74

Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 276 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 749 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 1347 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 4.87

****************************************************

As you can see I am not in the range of the 2 x 2.5 with the Ultra, but neither am I hopelessly far out. I think I'll save my pennies and wait for the G6s.

Since most of what I care about is final-render time, who can tell me what hardware upgrades I should be concentrating on?

And on another note, how much of all of this is Tiger going to change by offloading everything and its mother to the GPU? I'm thinking I'll wait until I have Tiger, and then check the video card scene and upgrade to whatever helps photoshop / cinema4d work the most. But any advice would be appreciated.
 
I'm glad others have corrected the original data, but it was really obvious that those figures were wrong. You can't increase the clockspeed by 25%, change nothing else, and get >50% speed increase. In fact, you can usually be confident that percentage performance won't even keep up with percentage clockspeed increase. And you should never publish uncontrolled benchmarks; as in this case, they could use different versions of the benchmarks, or there could be a hundred other variables to compensate for.
 
Comparison to G4...

I'm interested in how these test match my current machine (Dual G4 1.25) so I quote:

http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/G5/Powermac_Dual_g5.html

Cinebench 2003 (v1) results: (NOTE: Scores in Italics are from a MDD Dual G4/1.25GHz w/9800 Pro card running 10.2.6)

****************************************************

Tester : EMM

Processor : PowerMac G5
MHz : 2000
Number of CPUs : 2
Operating System : 10.2.7

Graphics Card : Radeon9600Pro
Resolution : 1024 x 768
Color Depth : Millions

****************************************************

Rendering (Single CPU): 219 CB-CPU (Dual G4 1.25GHz/9800 = 120)
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 401 CB-CPU (Dual G4 1.25GHz/9800 = 220)

Multiprocessor Speedup: 1.83 (Dual G4 1.25GHz/9800 = 1.83)

Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 266 CB-GFX (Dual G4 1.25GHz/9800 = 149)
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 661 CB-GFX (Dual G4 1.25GHz/9800 = 411)
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 1168 CB-GFX (Dual G4 1.25GHz/9800 = 875)

OpenGL Speedup: 4.40 (Dual G4 1.25GHz/9800 = 5.87)

****************************************************

Cheers Daniel
 
clr900 said:
How did someone already get a dual 2.5 with a 6800 ultra, I thought they are not shipping until August? I plan on getting one too but didn't think that they are shipping right now.
Click to expand...

The tests were run by a WWDC attendee. Available there, not shipping yet.
 
michaelb said:
Depends on demand I guess. PCI-Express is in Intel's latest chipsets mainly because they want to shake up the status quo and get everyone to upgrade, not I think because graphics cards actually need it.

My understanding was that for the immediate future, AGP was just fine. Can graphics card yet saturate the 8x AGP bandwidth, let alone the 16x PCI-Express?

Mainboard makers are actually having to include both PCI-X (for backward compatibility) and PCI-Express, making for larger boards and bigger tower cases. I'm not sure Apple should go that route yet.

Once more cards are available for PCI-Express, maybe then's the right time.
Click to expand...
And besides ... PCI Express is currently slower than AGP 8x for most things. It's better to wait until the technology matures. PCI Express vs AGP
 
Rumors spread

Even though xlr8yourmac's benchmarks are outdated and thus do not provide a valid comparison (as pointed out by several posts above), the rumor of the 2.5 GHz G5s being 60% faster than their predecessors will spread anyway... 🙄
 
Hello?

Shouldn't it read...

"One user provides some of the first benchmarks from nVidia's newest GeForce 6800 Ultra DDL card for PowerMacs." ?????????
 
I can not believe it!!! this is not the G5 optimized CineBench

Kingsfoil13 said:
I do most of my work in Cinema4D, so the Cinebench scores always seem particularly relevant to me. (before someone asks: Maxon makes Cinebench, and it is basically just a stripped-down version of their 3d modeling app, Cinema4D.)

I'm running a stock rev A 2 x 2Ghz G5 (with an ATI 9600 Pro) and 2GB of crucial RAM added (for what that's worth) for a total of 2.5GB. The monitor in question is a NEC-Mitsubishi 1760vm, 1280x1024, running through an ADC-DVI adapter and then a Belkin DVI cable direct to the monitor.
Click to expand...


Guys stop getting excited so much!!! Cinebench values published here by macrumors were obtained on a NON G5-optimized CineBench!!!
have alook here to see the difference on the results, when using a dual 2GHz (scroll down bottom of the page):
http://www.hardmac.com/niouzcontenu.php?date=2003-10-16#6891

I do not imply that the Dual 2.5GHz is not blazzing fast, it is just that those numbers do not really speak properly while comparing 2 G5...
 
Thoughts - this is why we need true xlr8yourmac tests

Sir_Giggles said:
Now that Mac OSX will use Core Image and Core Video to offload some processing to the GPU, this throws a wrench into some of the benchmarks for rendering. As image-manipulation apps and 3d programs are sure to benefit greatly from GPU rendering, are we to see Cinebench being updated to allow for these new benchmarks?
Click to expand...

I agree completely.

What needs to be tested is DV file conversion/iTunes Mp3 conversion/and photoshop render - via version 7 that wouldn't be affected by the coreimage API.

XLR8yourMac usually provides these tests.

Checking Unreal tournament framerates would also help.

Running Xbench may not even work until the program were specifically set for these new CPUs.

It's still a VERY interesting view of the new PowerMacs - indicating to me that 3.0Ghz isn't even necessary to ship right now. Nothing could take advantage of the faster than 2.5Ghz/Ultra setup right now.
 
Semi-on topic...

I note some interest in OpenGL capabilities of mac systems, etc. In that regard I made the following post in another forum that contains some interesting graphs comparing systems/adapter capabilities across various systems using the OpenMark benchmark tool. Not fully scientifically done but still interesting.

----

The following list are links to graphs (PDF format) for various systems and test configurations using the OpenMark OpenGL benchmarking tool. I will update this post as I complete tests (add in the links)...

Summary Results:

So the following graph is using numbers from the systems that I have the numbers for so far (posted to this topic or my own systems). I picked the 10k to 100k range of triangles because that appears to be a point past which the adapter and CPU/system factors both come into play. In other words the numbers appear to show more of a overall system limiting not so much an adapter limit. The first part of full range graph (0-100k) can give you the idea of how the adapters compare with each other before system limits are hit.

System Comparison at Simular Resolutions 10k-100k triangles (updated 6/23)

System Comparison at Simular Resolutions 0-100k triangles (updated 6/23)

Detailed Results:

PowerMac Dual G5 2GHz (1st gen), 2GB RAM, ATI Radeon 9800 PRO 128MB, Mac OS X 10.3.4
(note this system has two monitors attached both at 1920x1200 by default, so only 64MB of VRAM is available per monior, also I had one CPU being consumed with a back ground task not related to OpenMark)

Surface Size: 1920x1200x32bpp
Surface Size: 1600x1200x32bpp
Surface Size: 1344x840x32bpp
Surface Size: 1280x800x32bpp
Surface Size Comparison

PowerBook 15" G4 1.25GHz, 1GB RAM, ATI Mobility Radeon 9600 64MB, Mac OS X 10.3.4
Surface Size: 1280x854x32bpp
Surface Size: 1152x768x32bpp
Surface Size: 896x600x32bpp
Surface Size Comparison

PowerBook 12" G4 867MHz, 640MB RAM, nVidia GeForce4 420 Go 32MB, Mac OS X 10.3.4
...being worked on...


Current Raw Data (Excel workbook)
 
adzoox said:
I agree completely.

What needs to be tested is DV file conversion/iTunes Mp3 conversion/and photoshop render - via version 7 that wouldn't be affected by the coreimage API.
Click to expand...

Note CoreImage is not involved at all in the tests being talked about, etc. In fact the systems at WWDC that have the 30" screens are not even running Tiger (Mac OS X 10.4).
 
DMann said:
$290 million in NJ, 10 rounds, not even close. Perhaps
I'll stop playing and put the money into a dual 30" screen
fund 🙄
Click to expand...

By the time you save enough money in that Jar Apple whould have released a 44 inch screen. 😉 🙂 😀
 
legion said:
PCI-X and PCI-Express have nothing to do with each other. They have completely different purposes. For now, if a mobo maker had both AGP and PCI-Express, then you'd have a valid point. The PCI-X on these systems isn't because of "backward compatability."
Click to expand...

PCI, PCI-X and PCIe are related in many ways... so the above doesn't make much sense to me. The connectors (signaling used) for PCIe are not compatible with traditional PCI adapters and hence system boards ship with a mix of PCIe and PCI/-X for now. Down the road the goal of PCIe is to over take and replace legacy PCI slots not just AGP.

Note the following article... http://arstechnica.com/paedia/p/pci-express/pcie-1.html
 
Steven1621 said:
does anyone know if the new displays are in apples stores yet?
Click to expand...

I hope that they will be on display soon. Plan to visit my local Apple Store next week. Even though they aren't shipping yet, if they had them at WWDC they should be at the stores.
 
The Bartender said:
They arent... didnt Jobs comment on when they were due?
Click to expand...
Duff-Man says....this has probably been asked and answered in the thread about the displays but anyway....I just tried the online Apple Store and the new 20" display showed as 2-4 weeks. while the 30" came up as "august" - I would suspect they would get demo units into stores before they ship from the online store.....oh yeah!
 
My new 20in monitor is shipping on or before 07/29/04. Which is one day before my Dual 2.5 G5. So i would hopefully get them around the same time.
 
ok big whoop the Dual 2.5Ghz G5 is slightly faster than its predicessor it could just be me but a dual 2.5 ghz is a total of 1ghz faster than the dual 2.0 and with a faster bus/GPU it should be somewhere between 50-75% faster but its not! and the liquid cooling is nifty to say but does it acutally use less power? it seems not I say that you people are blinded by Apple don't get me wrong a Dual 2.5ghz G5 with 8GB of ram and 1TB of HD space and a Geforce FX 6800 Ultra would be extremly nice but its still a underwelming improvment
 
shyataroo said:
ok big whoop the Dual 2.5Ghz G5 is slightly faster than its predicessor it could just be me but a dual 2.5 ghz is a total of 1ghz faster than the dual 2.0 and with a faster bus/GPU it should be somewhere between 50-75% faster but its not! and the liquid cooling is nifty to say but does it acutally use less power? it seems not I say that you people are blinded by Apple don't get me wrong a Dual 2.5ghz G5 with 8GB of ram and 1TB of HD space and a Geforce FX 6800 Ultra would be extremly nice but its still a underwelming improvment
Click to expand...

1) a second processor isn't 100% efficient.
2) the difference between 4ghz and 5ghz is 25%, not 50% or 75%

therefore...

3) I have no idea why you are tripping
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back